Background and procedural informationHouse Joint Resolution 39 was introduced on 3/10/05 by Debi Farr, a
Democrat from Eugene. A public hearing and work session were held, and,
after being amended, the bill was adopted by a vote of 34-21 and sent
to the senate, where it failed.

Under the proposed legislation, are single-member districts a requirement or otherwise implied?Yes. There are nesting provisions in the proposed legislation that
strongly imply single-member districts, and would make it difficult to
draw multi-member districts. However, there appear to be no other
constitutional or statutory bars to multi-member districts.

Does the proposed legislation provide for Voting Rights Act compliance (e.g. can the commission use voter history information)?Yes.
While there is no specific mention of the Voting Rights Act, there is
no prohibition on the demographic information the commission is allowed
to use in drawing legislative districts.

Under the proposed legislation, how is the commission formed?The Supreme Court is charged with creating a pool of retired state and
federal judges. The Supreme Court randomly appoints four members, and
the four appointed members then elect the 5th member. No more than 2
members can be from the same political party.

Under the proposed legislation, are competitive districts favored?Neutral.*

Under the proposed legislation, can members of the public submit plans?Yes. The commission must hold at least three public hearings throughout
Oregon, at which the commission can receive and consider proposed
redistricting plans and other public comment.

Does the proposed legislation allow for mid-decade redistricting?No. The apportionment of legislative seats is only authorized in a year ending in 1.

*Note:
A proposal may be neutral on whether or not to favor competitive
districts for a number of reasons, including that such a requirement
may be thought to conflict with other criteria, potentially create
other legal issues, or is assumed to flow from the new process itself
-- or it might merely not be a priority for the legislative sponsors.
FairVote believes that some form of proportional voting is needed to
ensure maximum competitiveness for each seat and to ensure meaningful choices for
all voters.